The question was “would you rather be alone in the woods with a man or a bear”, right? Is this not the logical conclusion of the bear option? Like, I very much agree this is bad hearted revenge fantasy but this is the logical conclusion of choosing the bear. They’re not cuddly.
Explain. If you were teleported directly in front of a bear and directly in front of a stranger, how you would fare better with the bear. In detail, please.
No, that wasn’t the question. Are you moving the goal post to be offended?
If there’s a bear 800m away from me, he’s not likely to move in my direction. If he moves in my direction, then of course I’ll turn around and run and that’ll be it.
If there’s a man 800m away from a woman in the woods, she doesn’t know what he’s going to do. If he starts going in her direction, she still doesn’t know what he’s going to do, so maybe she waits until he’s much closer. And when he’s much closer, she still doesn’t know what he’ll do, right until it’s too late. Maybe he’ll just say hi your shoelace is undone, or maybe he’ll stab you.
That’s the point. You don’t know how dangerous the man might be and you don’t know how worse your odds get the longer you fail to react. You know what to do with a bear and you can react immediately to be safe sooner.
…What? If that wasn’t the question then what WAS the question?
What, the question is if you’re in like a mile radius of it? Lmao obviously the bear then. That’s even more of a dumb question. Wait all this time it was literally just “if you’re in the general large vicinity of” and not right next to? Jesus. What’s the point of that? I’d rather be lost randomly in a forest with a bear than even a serial killer, that’s an easy choice.
The question was “would you rather be alone in the woods with a man or a bear”
Would you rather come across a man or a bear, would you rather be alone with a man or a bear… None of this means “the bear is right in your face.” Having a bear come right to your face is obviously not the same as having a stranger walk right next to you, the bear is obviously more dangerous in this case. But the question is not about having a bear in your face.
What, the question is if you’re in like a mile radius of it? Lmao obviously the bear then. That’s even more of a dumb question. Wait all this time it was literally just “if you’re in the general large vicinity of” and not right next to? Jesus. What’s the point of that? I’d rather be lost randomly in a forest with a bear than even a serial killer, that’s an easy choice.
Exactly. Some people do get that detail and still get offended, and a lot of people miss it and make the discussion harder without even thinking they misunderstood something.
correct. a man on the other side of a clearing is a more dangerous threat to you, a hiker, regardless of your gender, than a bear. nothing about this ever said that the bear or the man was directly in your close personal space. it was always just “you encounter a bear outside”
that’s what people keep saying. i don’t know why you’re so hung up on these details you added to the scenario that were never there in the first place
women saying they don’t by default feel safe around men and feel more equipped to deal with a bear is a reflection of rape culture and bears being predictable, not a preference for being attacked by a bear
Well that’s…information I didn’t have before. Okay. I can see it more easily now. Still a dumb question but less of a dumb answer. I can admit when I’m wrong.
No, he may be hunderds of meters away from you. You’re certainly not getting stabbed this second, but the point is that you won’t know what he’ll do until it’s too late to avoid it. The bear is much easier to handle at a distance, especially since the bear is much less likely to move toward you than the man. The man isn’t very likely to move toward you either, but still more than the bear, which is almost guaranteed to avoid you.
If you suddenly realize that there’s a bear not too far from you (still hundreds of meters away), it’s not a nice feeling, but you still know what to do. If you sudenly realize that there’s a man not too far, it’s probably okay, but your risk meter goes up the closer he comes toward you and you don’t react, whereas if the bear even turns toward you, you just leave and you’re safe again.
You can also turn away from the man the moment he turns toward you, obviously. But the whole point of the danger assessment is that you don’t know how to react, and the risk only goes up for a woman alone in the woods. The man is an unknown variable, the bear is not. That is the entire message of the answer.
Entirely different situation when you’re not up in each other’s face. I thought that was the whole deal. If that isn’t the deal, I get the bear choice.
Jesus Christ have you people ever been outside? You act like all men are just raping beasts being kept back by a thin thread. Have you ever considered that one of those things a man could do would BE NICE? Like a HUMAN? Probably not since you clearly don’t even consider them human. Good God I am so disappointed in humanity.
No, I do not act like like all men are raping beasts. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Especially since I am myself a man. So I know for certain we aren’t all raping beasts.
But please, show me one bear that has raped a human woman. We get stories like that all the time from men. And we should be angry towards them for making men look bad, rather than towards the women who fear us.
I’m clearly done with this but “a consequence man is free from anything”? Really? You sound like those fucking religious wackadoos who think the only thing holding them back from horrific crimes is God. Maybe a consequence free man just wants a fucking hug, asshole.
The question was “would you rather be alone in the woods with a man or a bear”, right? Is this not the logical conclusion of the bear option? Like, I very much agree this is bad hearted revenge fantasy but this is the logical conclusion of choosing the bear. They’re not cuddly.
No, it is absolutely not.
Explain. If you were teleported directly in front of a bear and directly in front of a stranger, how you would fare better with the bear. In detail, please.
No, that wasn’t the question. Are you moving the goal post to be offended?
If there’s a bear 800m away from me, he’s not likely to move in my direction. If he moves in my direction, then of course I’ll turn around and run and that’ll be it.
If there’s a man 800m away from a woman in the woods, she doesn’t know what he’s going to do. If he starts going in her direction, she still doesn’t know what he’s going to do, so maybe she waits until he’s much closer. And when he’s much closer, she still doesn’t know what he’ll do, right until it’s too late. Maybe he’ll just say hi your shoelace is undone, or maybe he’ll stab you.
That’s the point. You don’t know how dangerous the man might be and you don’t know how worse your odds get the longer you fail to react. You know what to do with a bear and you can react immediately to be safe sooner.
…What? If that wasn’t the question then what WAS the question?
What, the question is if you’re in like a mile radius of it? Lmao obviously the bear then. That’s even more of a dumb question. Wait all this time it was literally just “if you’re in the general large vicinity of” and not right next to? Jesus. What’s the point of that? I’d rather be lost randomly in a forest with a bear than even a serial killer, that’s an easy choice.
Would you rather come across a man or a bear, would you rather be alone with a man or a bear… None of this means “the bear is right in your face.” Having a bear come right to your face is obviously not the same as having a stranger walk right next to you, the bear is obviously more dangerous in this case. But the question is not about having a bear in your face.
Exactly. Some people do get that detail and still get offended, and a lot of people miss it and make the discussion harder without even thinking they misunderstood something.
Then the question isn’t about having a man directly in your face either!
correct. a man on the other side of a clearing is a more dangerous threat to you, a hiker, regardless of your gender, than a bear. nothing about this ever said that the bear or the man was directly in your close personal space. it was always just “you encounter a bear outside”
that’s what people keep saying. i don’t know why you’re so hung up on these details you added to the scenario that were never there in the first place
women saying they don’t by default feel safe around men and feel more equipped to deal with a bear is a reflection of rape culture and bears being predictable, not a preference for being attacked by a bear
Well that’s…information I didn’t have before. Okay. I can see it more easily now. Still a dumb question but less of a dumb answer. I can admit when I’m wrong.
No, he may be hunderds of meters away from you. You’re certainly not getting stabbed this second, but the point is that you won’t know what he’ll do until it’s too late to avoid it. The bear is much easier to handle at a distance, especially since the bear is much less likely to move toward you than the man. The man isn’t very likely to move toward you either, but still more than the bear, which is almost guaranteed to avoid you.
If you suddenly realize that there’s a bear not too far from you (still hundreds of meters away), it’s not a nice feeling, but you still know what to do. If you sudenly realize that there’s a man not too far, it’s probably okay, but your risk meter goes up the closer he comes toward you and you don’t react, whereas if the bear even turns toward you, you just leave and you’re safe again.
You can also turn away from the man the moment he turns toward you, obviously. But the whole point of the danger assessment is that you don’t know how to react, and the risk only goes up for a woman alone in the woods. The man is an unknown variable, the bear is not. That is the entire message of the answer.
Entirely different situation when you’re not up in each other’s face. I thought that was the whole deal. If that isn’t the deal, I get the bear choice.
No, the question was: would you rather be alone in the woods next to a random man or a random bear.
This implies anonymity and no consequences of actions. So the way people act online.
A consequence free man is capable of anything. A bear would only maul you.
Jesus Christ have you people ever been outside? You act like all men are just raping beasts being kept back by a thin thread. Have you ever considered that one of those things a man could do would BE NICE? Like a HUMAN? Probably not since you clearly don’t even consider them human. Good God I am so disappointed in humanity.
No, I do not act like like all men are raping beasts. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Especially since I am myself a man. So I know for certain we aren’t all raping beasts.
But please, show me one bear that has raped a human woman. We get stories like that all the time from men. And we should be angry towards them for making men look bad, rather than towards the women who fear us.
I mean it wasn’t exactly rape but
I’m clearly done with this but “a consequence man is free from anything”? Really? You sound like those fucking religious wackadoos who think the only thing holding them back from horrific crimes is God. Maybe a consequence free man just wants a fucking hug, asshole.
Here’s a short video of women being outside in public spaces: https://www.tiktok.com/@specere/video/7472932570162924831
Imagine encountering that on a daily basis and then someone asks you how you’d feel encountering a random man in the woods?